Advertisement

Slot Machines: Pursuing Responsible Gaming Practices for Virtual Reels and Near Misses

Article

Abstract

Since 1983, slot machines in North America have used a computer and virtual reels to determine the odds. Since at least 1988, a technique called clustering has been used to create a high number of near misses, failures that are close to wins. The result is that what the player sees does not represent the underlying probabilities and randomness, and this misrepresented outcome will have some effect on the player’s perceptions of the game, which may lead directly to classical and operant conditioning, the frustration effect, the perception of early wins, illusion of control, biased evaluation of outcomes, entrapment, and irrational thinking. We use transcripts of Nevada hearings to show that the initial proponents understood that virtual reels and near misses may have a detrimental psychological effect on the player. We conclude by suggesting that jurisdictions should consider the historical facts and research presented in this paper when pursuing responsible gaming practices for slot machines.

Keywords

Near miss Slot machine Probability Randomness Virtual reel mapping Gaming regulations Public policy 

References

  1. Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (2007). Electronic gaming equipment minimum technical standards—Draft, August.Google Scholar
  2. Amsel, A. (1958). The role of frustrative nonreward in noncontinuous reward situations. Psychological Bulletin, 55, 102–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australia and New Zealand (2007). Gaming machine national standards. Retrieved August 7, 2007, from www.nt.gov.au/justice/licensing/gaming/Gmns8_0.pdf.
  4. Blaszczynski, A. (2000). Pathways to pathological gambling: Identifying typologies. eGambling: The Electronic Journal of Gambling Issues, 1.Google Scholar
  5. Blaszczynski, A., Ladouceur, R., & Shaffer, H. (2004). A science-based framework for responsible gambling: The Reno model. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(3).Google Scholar
  6. Blaszczynski, A., & Nower, L. (2002). A pathways model of problem and pathological gambling. Addiction, 97(5), 487–499, May.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blaszczynski, A., Sharpe, L. & Walker, M. (2001). The assessment of the impact of the configuration on electronic gaming machines as harm minimisation strategies for problem gambling. A report for the Gaming Industry Operator’s Group. Sydney: University Printing Service.Google Scholar
  8. Brockner, J., & Rubin, J. Z. (1985). Entrapment in escalating conflicts: A social psychological analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  9. Burbank, J. (2000). License to steal: Nevada’s gaming control system in the megaresort age. Reno and Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chantal, Y., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Skill versus luck: A motivational analysis of gambling involvement. Journal of Gambling Studies, 12, 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cote, D., Caron, A., Aubert, J., & Ladouceur, R. (2003). Near wins prolong gambling on a video lottery terminal. Journal of Gambling Studies, 19(4), 380–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Custer, R. L. & Milt, H. (1985). When luck runs out. New York, Facts on File.Google Scholar
  13. Dixon, M. R., & Schreiber, J. E. (2004). Near-miss effects on response latencies and win estimations of slot machine players. The Psychological Record, 54(3), 335–348.Google Scholar
  14. Ghezzi, P. M., Wilson, G. R., & Porter, J. (2006). The near-miss effect in simulated slot machine play. In P. M. Ghezzi, C. A. Lyons, M. R. Dixon, & G. R. Wilson (Eds.) Gambling: Behavior theory, research, and application (pp. 155–170). Reno, NV: Context.Google Scholar
  15. Gilovich, T. (1983). Biased evaluation and persistence in gambling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1110–1126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Griffiths, M. (1993). Fruit machine gambling: The importance of structural characteristics. Behavioral Science, 9(2), 101–120.Google Scholar
  17. Griffiths, M. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85, 351–369.Google Scholar
  18. Griffiths, M. (1995). Adolescent gambling. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths, M. (1999). Gambling technologies: Prospects for problem gambling. Behavioral Science, 15(3), 265–283.Google Scholar
  20. Harrigan, K. A. (2007a). Slot machine structural characteristics: Creating near misses using high symbol award ratios. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, DOI  10.1007/s11469-007-9066-8. Online first version.
  21. Harrigan, K. A. (2007b). Slot machine structural characteristics: Distorted player views of payback percentages. Journal of Gambling Issues, June (20), 215–234.Google Scholar
  22. IGT (2005). Introduction to slots and gaming. Las Vegas: International Game Technology.Google Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246, 136–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kassinove, J., & Schare, M. (2001). Effects of the “near miss” and the “big win” at persistence in slot machine gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(2), 155–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ladouceur, R., & Walker, M. (1996). A cognitive perspective on gambling. In P. Salkovskis (Ed.), Trends in cognitive and behavioral therapies (pp. 89–120). Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Locke, K. (2001). Above PAR. Slot Tech Magazine, August, 4–8.Google Scholar
  28. Nestor, B. (2007). The 10 most influential people in the history of slots. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from http://www.strictlyslots.com/archive/0407ss/SS0704influential.pdf.
  29. Nevada Gaming Commission (1988a). Nevada State Gaming Control Board v. Universal Distributing of Nevada. Complaint for disciplinary action. Case-No. 88-4. April 29.Google Scholar
  30. Nevada Gaming Commission (1988b). Nevada State Gaming Control Board v. Universal Distributing of Nevada. Stipulation and Order. Case-No. 88-4. October 12.Google Scholar
  31. Nevada Gaming Commission (1989a). Hearing to consider further action required pursuant to the declaratory ruling issued on December 1, 1988, by the Nevada Gaming Commission, as described therein, and in the Stipulation and Order approved by the Nevada Gaming Commission on September 22, 1988, in the matter of Universal Company, Ltd. and Universal Distributing of Nevada, Inc., Case No. 88-4. January 26, Las Vegas, Nevada. Sierra Nevada Reporters. pp. 212–308.Google Scholar
  32. Nevada Gaming Commission (1989b). Hearing to consider: Universal’s Motion for Reconsideration/Rehearing of the Decision of Nevada Gaming Commission made on December 1, 1988, concerning Universal’s Petition for Declaratory Ruling, and if necessary, hearing to consider further action required pursuant to the decisions of the Nevada Gaming Commission made on December 1, 1988, and February 23, 1989, and pursuant to the Stipulation and Order approved and entered by the Nevada Gaming Commission on September 22, 1988, in the matter of Universal Company, Ltd. and Universal Distributing of Nevada, Inc., Case No. 88-4. February 23, Las Vegas, Nevada. Sierra Nevada Reporters. pp. 256–300.Google Scholar
  33. Nevada Gaming Commission (1989c). In the Matter of the Petition of Universal Co., Ltd, and Universal Distributing of Nevada, Inc, For a Declaratory Ruling. Declaratory Order. Case-No. 88-8. March 15.Google Scholar
  34. Nevada Gaming Commission. (2006). Regulations of the Nevada Gaming Commission and State Gaming Control Board. Regulation 14. Manufacturers, distributors, operators, of inter-casino linked systems, gaming devices, new games inter-casino linked systems and associated equipment. 14.040. Retrieved December 7, 2006, from http://gaming.nv.gov/stats_regs.htm#regs.
  35. Nevada State Gaming Control Board (1983). Agenda Item 6 “New Games/Devices (Request for Approval) Device: Virtual Reel Slot Machine.” Transcript of discussions, pp. i, ii, iii, 2–97. Sierra Nevada Reporters. August 10. Carson City, NV.Google Scholar
  36. Nower, L., & Blaszczynski, A. (2004). A pathways model to treating youth gamblers. In J. L. Derevensky, & R. Gupta (Eds.) Gambling problems in youth: Theoretical and applied perspectives (pp. 189–209). New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  37. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. (2007a). PAR Sheet for Double Diamond Deluxe. Paytable 186A532.Google Scholar
  38. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. (2007b). PAR Sheet for Phantom of the Opera. Paytable 384E106.Google Scholar
  39. Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. (2004). Gambling addiction and the evolution of the “near miss”. Addiction Research and Theory, 12(5), 407–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parke, J., & Griffiths, M. (2006). The psychology of the fruit machine: The role of structural characteristics (revisited). International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 4(2), 151–179, April.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid, R. L. (1986). The psychology of the near miss. Journal of Gambling Behavior, 2(1), 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Strictland, L. H., & Grote, F. W. (1967). Temporal presentation of winning symbols and slot machine playing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74, 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Telnaes, I. S. (1984). U.S. Patent No. 4,448,419. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Google Scholar
  45. Turner, N., & Horbay, R. (2004). How do slot machines and other electronic gambling machines really work? Journal of Gambling Issues, 11.Google Scholar
  46. Walker, M. (1992). The psychology of gambling. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  47. Watts, R. (2007). PAR Sheet possibly for a Double Bucks machine in PDF format. Accessed January 2, 2007: http://rwatts.cdyn.com/Machines/download_area.html.
  48. Wilson, J. (2004a). Virtual reels? Physical reels? Just the real truth. Slot Tech Magazine. January, 18–22.Google Scholar
  49. Wilson, J. (2004b). PAR excellence: Improve your edge. Slot Tech Magazine. February, 16–23.Google Scholar
  50. Wilson, J. (2004c). PAR excellence: Part 2. Slot Tech Magazine. March, 16–21.Google Scholar
  51. Wilson, J. (2004d). PAR excellence: Part 3. Slot Tech Magazine. April, 20–26.Google Scholar
  52. Wilson, J. (2004e). PAR excellence—Improving you game—Part IV. Slot Tech Magazine. May, 21–24.Google Scholar
  53. Wilson, J. (2004f). PAR excellence—Part V: The end is here! Slot Tech Magazine. June, 24–29.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ArtsUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations